Re: [office] Status of list discussions/Suggestion how toproceed

["Florian Reuter" <freuter@novell.com>]

Hi,

wrt. to Oliver analysis.

I posted a "consensus proposal" as basis for consensus discussion some time ago. This consens was not apprechiated by
Oliver and Thomas. So the consensus is "off the table" I guess.

So it makes no sense that Oliver evaluated the reqs wrt. to the consensus proposal, which in fact may have some problems
in it. Again, it was meant to be a starting point for a consensus discussion. 

So when you refer to my proposal please refer to the "original one" and not the "consensus suggestion".

> So, going through the requirements to see which are
important to us won't take us much further, because we additionally
would have to discuss whether the requirements are met by a proposal.

I disagree to that. We have the requirement and we should figure out whether these are valid or not.

So I would suggest to take 15min in the next TC call to go throught the reqs and figure out the TCs opinion. If it turns
out that the TC disagrees to F1-F5 then we're done and can take Olivers proposal.

I really believe that postponing this makes no sense.

Additionally I worked full time on the num proposal, so I'm not ready to vote on any other proposal...

Thanks,

~Florian

P.S.
All we need is a TC opinion wrt. to the requirements to end this discussion.

>>> Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM> 03/26/07 11:09 AM >>>
All,

Florian has posted his analysis now. Though explanatory statements are
missing, it seems that he for several requirements comes to different
conclusions than Oliver. So, we are now in the situation that we not
only have different opinions which requirements should be met, we also
have different opinions whether a certain proposal meets these
requirements. So, going through the requirements to see which are
important to us won't take us much further, because we additionally
would have to discuss whether the requirements are met by a proposal.

I still would appreciate it if we could continue our discussions based 
on a single proposal. If that's not possible, then I would like to 
suggest is that

1) Florian provides explanatory statements for those requirements that
Oliver believes the proposal from Thomas, David and himself meets and
where he disagrees.
2) Oliver, Thomas and David provide explanatory statements for those
requirements that Florian believes his proposal meets but where they
disagree.
3) That, after step 1 and 2 are finished, the authors of both proposal
get a chance to comment the opinion of each other, and/or to adapt the
evaluation of the proposals.
4) And that we than have a ballot. This could be a ballot on for one or 
the other proposal, but may include the option to take one as a basis, 
and to resolve remaining issues only on that proposal, instead of having 
two concurring ones.

The opinions of other TC members are of cause welcome, too. The items
above are what I think we need as a minimum to proceed only.

We won't have a call on April the 9th (because of Easter), and maybe
also not on the 16th (because of the OASIS Symposium), so I think we
should try to have a vote next Monday.

The deadline for 1) and 2) therefore should be the Tuesday COB, the one
for 3) Thursday COB.

If someone has other suggestion how to proceed, please let me know that.
I will not put the topic on the agenda of our conference call today.

Best regards

Michael


Florian Reuter wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> just for my understanding:
> 
> Then I understood correctly that we go through every req which one TC members states as critical for him (resp.
detects
> a problem?) and then have a yes/no vote?
> 
> ~Florian
> 
> 
>>>> Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM> 03/23/07 2:58 PM >>>
> Hi Florian,
> 
> Florian Reuter wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>>> I therefore suggest that we start our discussions of this topic in the 
>>> Monday call with a ballot whether we want to discuss the importance of 
>>> requirements that are not met by the proposal[...]
>> Do I understand correctly that you suggest to go through every req and vote an "is this important yes/no"?
>> Eg. (F1) important YES/NO, (M1) importatn YES/NO, etc. ...
> 
> No. We only need to discuss those that are not met by a proposal, and we 
> may actually start with a discussion of those requirements that are not 
> met or only partially met by one proposal. If it turns out that those 
> are not important for us, then we may consider to vote on that proposal. 
> And if there are only one or two that are important and not met, then we 
> may ask the authors of the proposal whether they can enhance the 
> proposal to meet these requirements, too.
> 
> Michael
> 


-- 
Michael Brauer, Technical Architect Software Engineering
StarOffice/OpenOffice.org
Sun Microsystems GmbH             Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg, Germany          michael.brauer@sun.com
http://sun.com/staroffice         +49 40 23646 500
http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1,
	   D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Marcel Schneider, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering